The argument to legalize marijuana is back in the news, after rock legend and Obama supporter Carlos Santana said that marijuana needs to be legalized, while also taking a hard swipe at California governor Arnold Schwarzenegger.

In a recent interview with the Associated Press, the Grammy-winning guitarist said, “I really believe that as soon as we legalize and decriminalize marijuana, we can actually afford a really good governor who won’t keep taking money away from education and from teachers and send him back to Hollywood where he can do ‘D’ movies and we can get an ‘A’ governor.” 

Santana went on to give a heart-felt plea to President Obama, saying,  “Bring the brothers home, and sisters home now. Legalize marijuana and take all that money and invest it in teachers and in education. You will see a transformation in America.”

Last week, President Obama acknowledged that the issue is a popular subject of debate at a town hall meeting at the White House, saying that many questions from his online audience came in about whether legalizing marijuana to stimulate the economy is a good idea.

Obama answered, “The answer is, no, I don’t think that is a good strategy — (laughter) — to grow our economy.” 

But there are some lawmakers who disagree with him.  California Assemblyman Tom Ammiano recently proposed a measure that would regulate marijuana in the state of California like alcohol - with people over the age of 21 allowed to grow, buy, sell, and possess cannabis.  If passed, he claims that the legalization of marijuana would be worth billions to the state. 

My question is, if our country can legalize alcohol and cigarettes, why not marijuana?  

Of course, one should not be able to drive or operate machinery while under the influence, government should regulate its quality and safety, and there should be age requirements and health warnings on packaging, but why is marijuana being held to a different standard than cigarettes and alcohol?

Cigarette smoking is highly addictive, can lead to cancer, most commonly lung cancer, but also cancer of the lips, mouth, throat, and voice box. Smokers also have a higher risk of getting esophagus, stomach, kidney, pancreas, cervix, bladder, and skin cancer.  Cigarette smoking can also lead to chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, high blood pressure, cataracts, and fertility problems, not to mention stained gums and teeth.

Excessive drinking can cause liver disease and cirrhosis, which rank among the top 10 leading causes of death in the nation, high cholesterol, cardiovascular disease, high blood pressure, heart failure and increased calorie intake (leading to obesity and a higher risk of diabetes). It can also lead to stroke and cardiomyopathy, a disease in which the heart muscle becomes inflamed and doesn’t work efficiently, cardiac arrhythmia, (abnormal, irregular heartbeat) and sudden cardiac death.

Marijuana smoking, while thought to affect the brain and body many times long after one has stopped using the drug, is generally not any more harmful than alcohol or tobacco if used in moderation.

So what’s the problem?

Legalization of marijuana would likely mean a lower price of the drug, reducing related crimes like theft.  Street justice related to drug disputes would also be diminished.  As with most bootleggers from the 1920’s, marijuana dealers would lose most or all of their business.  Police and court resources would be freed up for more serious crimes.  And legalization would also be a source of additional tax revenues.

The problem is that people are used to thinking that marijuana smoking is “bad.”  We have forgotten that drinking used to be “bad.”  In 1933, when President Franklin D. Roosevelt and congress ended prohibition, many people were shocked and alarmed.  Then they got used to it.  Now, there is very little crime, in comparison, related to the manufacturing, distribution, and sale of alcohol.  

In contrast, cigarette smoking used to be “cool.”  In the fifties, most movie stars, on screen and off, were rarely without a cigarette.  Then in the early 1970’s, the harmful effects of cigarette smoking became widely publicized and we realized that cigarette smoking was very “uncool,” in fact, actually “bad.”  Some people still smoke despite.  Many do not.

I don’t expect that the legalization of marijuana would be much different. 

Elyce Strong - Examiner.com

           

Kristopher Reinertson hit the bull’s-eye with, “Tech Administration Should Retire Zero Tolerance” (CT, Mar. 23). In fact the relatively safe, socially acceptable, God-given plant cannabis (marijuana) should be completely re-legalized.

A beneficial component of re-legalizing cannabis that doesn’t get mentioned is that it will lower hard drug addiction rates. DARE (Drug Abuse Resistance Education) will have to stop brainwashing youth into believing lies, half-truths and propaganda concerning cannabis, which creates grave, future problems.

How many citizens try cannabis and realize it’s not nearly as harmful as they were taught in DARE-type government environments? Then they think other substances must not be so bad either, only to become addicted to deadly drugs. The old lessons make cannabis out to be among the worst substances in the world, even though it’s less addictive than coffee and has never killed a single person.

The federal government even classifies cannabis as a Schedule I substance along with heroin, while methamphetamine and cocaine are only Schedule II substances. For the health and welfare of America’s children and adults, that dangerous and irresponsible message absolutely must change.

Further, regulated cannabis sales would make it so citizens who purchase cannabis would not come into contact with people who often also sell hard drugs, which would lower hard drug addiction rates.

Stan White

Dillon, Colo.
CollegiateTimes.com

           

Steve Lopez visited a former Orange County judge who is not just supporting a bill that would legalize marijuana so that the state could tax it, but he is willing to go on the record to say that the war on drugs is a lost.

I’m sitting in Costa Mesa with a silver-haired gent who once ran for Congress as a Republican and used to lock up drug dealers as a federal prosecutor, a man who served as an Orange County judge for 25 years. And what are we talking about? He’s begging me to tell you we need to legalize drugs in America.

“Please quote me,” says Jim Gray, insisting the war on drugs is hopeless. “What we are doing has failed.”

As far as I can tell, Gray is not off his rocker. He’s not promoting drug use, he says for clarification. Anything but. If he had his way, half the revenue we would generate from taxing and regulating drugs would be plowed back into drug prevention education, and there’d be rehab on demand.

Lopez writes “If Gray had his way, no one under 21 could buy drugs. But anyone older than that could legally buy marijuana — which, he says, causes nowhere near the amount of death and disease as alcohol. The state would need to see how that works, he said, before moving on to legalizing the sale of harder drugs. Sure, he says, legalization might lead to more toking at first, but he believes drug use would wane when it’s no longer forbidden and the novelty wears off.”

So the question is, what do you think? Have we lost the war on drugs? Is it more economical to legalize the weed and tax it? State your case below in the comments and/or vote in the poll here.

– Tony Pierce-  Los Angeles Times

           

           

Sen. Jim Webb, fresh off his passage of an historic expansion of the GI Bill, has found a new issue: the criminal justice system. And when Webb, a Virginia Democrat, sets his legislative sites on a priority, his colleagues pay attention.

On Thursday, Webb, along with the ranking Republican on the Judiciary Committee, Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.), introduced a bill to create a commission that would undertake an 18-month study of the criminal justice system and come back with legislative recommendations.

In an interview with the Huffington Post, Webb said that everything should be considered. And he means everything.

“I think everything should be on the table, and we specifically say that we want recommendations on how to deal with drug policy in our country. And we’ll get it to the people who have the credibility and the expertise and see what they come up with,” said Webb.

What about legalizing, taxing and regulating marijuana?

Webb paused. “I think they should do a very careful examination of all aspects of drug policy. I’ve done a couple of very extensive hearings on this, so we’ll wait to see what they say about that,” he said.

So it’s on the table? Webb flashed a wry grin, laughing mischievously.

The last government study group to look at drug policy, the 1972 Shafer Commission, recommended that President Richard Nixon decriminalize marijuana. He didn’t.

This commission will have a broader mandate, said Webb. He expects a “pretty broad range of legislative priorities to come out of it [covering] not just incarceration but the entire panorama of criminal justice.”

Webb’s bill, he said, is backed by Judiciary Committee chairman Pat Leahy (D-Vt.) as well as Majority Whip Dick Durbin and Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) — the chairman and ranking Republican of the Crime and Drugs Subcommittee. It has a powerful list of cosponsors, including the top four Democrats, Majority Leader Harry Reid (Nev.), Durbin, Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) and Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.).

“We’ve got a good chance to get this done this year,” said Webb, suggesting that the “dramatic” growth of the prison population makes it an issue that needs to be addressed. See the charts Webb brought to the Senate floor.

Webb cited “the exponential growth of incarceration since 1980,” saying that “a huge percentage of that growth has been nonviolent crimes associated with drugs.”

Webb, a decorated Vietnam veteran who was Secretary of the Navy under President Ronald Reagan, has as much military cred as any Democrat. “I’m very concerned about the issue of gangs and transnational gangs and I think a big piece of that — not all of it — a big piece of that is the movement of drugs. So that’s a huge piece of this,” said Webb.

The growing prison population has bipartisan roots, which I explore in a book be published soon, This Is Your Country On Drugs. Throughout the 1980s, Democrats in Congress and state governments around the country increased prison sentences for drug offenses, coming down particularly hard on crack. In 1986, Congress instituted mandatory-minimum sentences for powder and crack cocaine. To trigger the powder minimum, a dealer needed to possess 500 grams. For crack, just five grams. Two years later, the law was extended to anybody who was associated with the dealer — girlfriends, roommates, etc.

In 1991, Michigander Allen Harmelin argued that his life sentence for possessing roughly a pound and a half of cocaine is cruel and unusual. The Supreme Court ruled that it is neither. California enacted its three-strikes law in 1994 — three felonies equals a minimum of 25 years — and the feds one-upped the state, declaring a third felony to result in life without parole. Twenty-three more states enacted three-strikes laws by 1995.

In 1984, just over 30,000 people were in prison for drug crimes; by 1991, the number had soared to more than 150,000. The Department of Justice found in a study of the prison population that the average length of a federal stay drastically increased between 1986 and 1997. If you walked into prison in 1986, your average stay would have been 21 months. In 1997, it was 47 months. For weapons offenders, the rise was from 23 to 75 months, and for drug offenders, it was from 30 to 66 months. Not all criminals could expect such increased time behind bars, however: A bank robber could expect 74 months in 1986 and only 83 months a decade later.

Three-strikes laws and lengthening prison sentences explain what appears to be a contradiction: U.S. crime rates are falling while U.S. incarceration rates are rising. It stands to reason that if fewer people are committing crimes, then fewer people should be locked up. But locking up fewer people every year and putting them away for much longer mushrooms the prison population.

The result is that more than one out of every 100 Americans is currently in prison. If you’re a black male between 20 and 34, there’s a better than one in nine chance that you’re imprisoned. To keep all of these people behind bars, states spent a combined $44 billion in 2007.

Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) said he’s open to working with Webb. “It’ll be interesting,” Cornyn, a former prosecutor, said of the coming debate. “I would be open to ideas that would take certain first-time, nonviolent offenders and try to give them a shock probation or something like that which would encourage treatment but then would go serve their time if they didn’t fully cooperate,” he said.

Huffington Post